Summarize source-map coverage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool summarizes coverage but does not explain what 'summarize' entails (e.g., counts, percentages), what output format to expect, or how it handles empty/malformed maps. The lack of return format details is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action and object efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose but omits key contextual details such as the output structure and any prerequisites beyond a parsed source map. Since there is no output schema, the description should say what the summary contains; it does not. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, mapId, with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a parsed source map' gives some context that mapId likely refers to a previously parsed source map, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's semantics or where the map ID comes from. The single, self-named parameter mitigates the gap, but the description still does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Summarize mapped original lines and sources for a parsed source map' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (summarize) and resource (mapped original lines and sources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sourcemap_parse_v4 (parsing), sourcemap_lookup (specific mappings), and sourcemap_diff (comparisons).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for a parsed source map' implies that the tool should be used after parsing/fetching a source map, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is merely implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.